IBN TAYMIYYAH’S BOOK

My copy of the book As-Sarim al-Maslul ‘ala Shatim ar-Rasul by Allama Ibn Taymiyyah, consisting of 600 pages, was printed by ‘Majlis Dairatul Maarif’ (Hyderabad) in 1322 AH (1904 AD). It provides a comprehensive and detailed discussion of blasphemy, making it one of the most extensive works in the Islamic library.

Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328), known for his photographic memory and exceptional knowledge, possessed a remarkable intellect. His disciple, Imam Dhahabi, an Islamic historian and Hadith expert, even remarked that any Hadith unknown to Ibn Taymiyyah could not be considered valid. Therefore, while Ibn Taymiyyah’s books may not be of the highest standard regarding analysis and reasoning, they excel in the wealth of information they provide. This particular book is another example of this argument. However, the book does not offer a definitive work regarding analysis and reasoning. Some examples can be cited to demonstrate this point. Regarding the topic at hand, Ibn Taymiyyah holds the view that the punishment for insulting the Prophet must necessarily be death, according to Islam. However, his arguments supporting this view are insufficient to substantiate his standpoint fully.

1. In one of the chapters, Allama Ibn Taymiyyah recounts an incident where a nomadic Muslim accused the Prophet of being unjust in distributing war spoils. The man criticized the Prophet for not adhering to God’s will in this matter. Upon hearing this, Hazrat Umar expressed his desire to kill the hypocrite. However, the Prophet responded by seeking refuge with God and rejecting the notion that he would kill his Companions. (Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 1063, Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 14804)

Following this account, Ibn Taymiyyah states that the Prophet did not forbid Hazrat Umar from killing the man because he was innocent. Instead, the Prophet’s concern was that if he allowed such a killing, people would falsely claim that Muhammad had killed his own Companions (p. 174).

Considering Ibn Taymiyyah’s explanation, it can be observed that in his book, he advocates for the killing of anyone who insults the Prophet’s honour under all circumstances. However, when confronted with incidents from the Prophet’s life where individuals who displayed clear insolence were not killed, Ibn Taymiyyah should have revised his stance by acknowledging that the punishment for blasphemy is not absolute. However, he does not do so. Instead, he argues that the reason for not killing such individuals was not that they did not deserve to be killed but rather to prevent Islam from being defamed by the public.

The question then arises: what does Ibn Taymiyyah’s explanation indeed prove? In terms of the actual issue at hand, it still contradicts his theory. According to Ibn Taymiyyah, the only difference between the two situations is that in the earlier incident, “the Prophet did not kill the insolent individual to prevent Islam from receiving a negative perception.” Therefore, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, the statement should be: “Even though the insolent man deserved to be killed, he was not killed to protect Islam from defamation.” Thus, in both cases, the message remains the same—that the blasphemer will not be killed.

2. Let us consider another example to explore this matter further. After the conquest of Makkah, the Prophet had the opportunity to execute the polytheists, who were the staunchest enemies of Islam. However, he decided to forgive them and set them free, contrary to the custom of the time when prisoners of war were eligible to be killed.

If someone argues that the Prophet forgave them not because they were innocent but to win them over through a concept known as ‘taalif-e-qalb’ (winning over hearts), it raises the question of how this explanation impacts the real issue. We can say that the previous statement has been rephrased. The initial statement said, “The Prophet forgave the polytheists of Makkah to win them over.” The revised statement would be: “Although the polytheists of Makkah were eligible to be killed as prisoners of war, the Prophet granted them general amnesty to win over their hearts.” Both statements convey the same message, which is that the blasphemers in Makkah were released without being killed.

It appears that Ibn Taymiyyah has taken the words “Muhammad kills his Companions” literally, and according to his perspective, since Muhammad and his Companions are no longer present in this world, the attitude of reconciliation should permanently cease. Therefore, he argues that we must ensure that blasphemers are killed without hesitation.

However, it would be naive to interpret the Prophet’s words literally. Instead, the phrase “Muhammad kills his Companions” symbolizes the idea that Islam harms its followers. In today’s world, this concern exists with even greater intensity, emphasizing the continued relevance of this prophetic practice. The task at hand is to refrain from killing a person, even if they deserve it in a legal sense because their death could be exploited to discredit Islam and portray it as a barbaric religion. Such misrepresentation would deter people from engaging with the message of Islam, hindering them from receiving divine mercy.

This Sunnah of the Prophet highlights that maintaining a positive image of Islam takes precedence over all other considerations. The Prophet did not execute even the most wicked individuals, as doing so would have engendered hatred towards Islam among the masses.

In his book, Ibn Taymiyyah recounts this incident but fails to grasp that the Prophet’s action contradicts his viewpoint. Ibn Taymiyyah argues that killing the blasphemer is an essential requirement of the religion. However, the Prophet’s Sunnah demonstrates that there is a more significant concern to consider: safeguarding Islam from becoming a subject of ridicule rather than admiration. If there is a risk that the image of Islam may be tarnished, it is preferable to spare the blasphemer’s life rather than bring infamy upon Islam.

Ibn Taymiyyah asserts in his book that the Quran commands Muslims to engage in Jihad, both with their wealth and lives. He highlights that Jihad can be carried out not only through physical actions but also through the power of one’s words. According to him, the Jihad of the tongue is even more potent than other forms. In support of this, Ibn Taymiyyah cites the Prophet’s instruction to engage in Jihad against the polytheists using one’s hands, tongues, and wealth.

3. He mentions an incident involving Hassan bin Thabit, whom the Prophet tasked to engage in Jihad against the polytheists through his poetry. A pulpit was set up for Hassan in the Prophet’s Mosque in Madinah, where he defended the Prophet through his couplets, countering the insults of the polytheists. The Prophet prayed for Hassan’s assistance with the Holy Spirit and declared that Gabriel was with him during his defence of the Messenger. Hassan’s powerful verses acted as sharp arrows that subdued the polytheists and deterred them from harassing the Muslims.

From this story, Ibn Taymiyyah concludes that verbal denigration is even more impactful than physical attacks. Therefore, according to his viewpoint, anyone who insults the Prophet with words should be executed, considering it akin to attacking him with arrows and swords.

However, a more appropriate interpretation of this story would be that the power of words can be a potent weapon in countering criticism and defending Islam. Rather than advocating for punishment, Ibn Taymiyyah should have emphasized the use of poetry and prose to subdue those who criticize Islam or the Prophet. Following the Prophet’s example, Muslims can respond to verbal attacks using the same medium of expression, comparable to journalism at that time.

Strangely, Ibn Taymiyyah deduces from this incident the idea that an attack on Islam with words is more severe than a physical attack. Consequently, he advocates for death as the only punishment for those who engage in such verbal attacks.

Ibn Taymiyyah’s argument is indeed perplexing. The Sunnah of the Prophet clearly demonstrates that responding to the opponents of Islam should be done with words, as it is the most effective approach. However, Ibn Taymiyyah reaches the strange conclusion that the blasphemer must be killed because their attack on Islam is deemed more serious than a physical attack with a sword. If words are more potent than arrows and swords, it would be more practical to employ this powerful tool for defence rather than resorting to a relatively ineffective method.

4. Regarding Abdullah bin Ubayy, the leader of the hypocrites in Madinah, who insulted and tormented the Prophet, the Prophet did not order his killing. Abdullah bin Ubayy died a natural death in Madinah. Ibn Taymiyyah explains this by suggesting that the Prophet refrained from killing him because he feared it would weaken Islam, which was considered fragile at that time.

However, Ibn Taymiyyah’s explanation is illogical. If Islam were weak during the time of Abdullah bin Ubayy, it would have made more sense for the Prophet to take decisive action against him to establish the authority and strength of Islam. The Prophet’s restraint in not ordering his killing cannot be attributed solely to the perceived weakness of the religion.

It is essential to critically examine IbnTaymiyyah’s arguments and consider alternative interpretations that align with the principles of peaceful dialogue and intellectual engagement advocated by the Prophet in responding to criticism and defending Islam.

In the first year of the Hijrah, the Islamic Government was established in Madinah, marking a significant milestone in the history of Islam. This was followed by the conquest of Makkah in the eighth year of the Hijrah. By the ninth year, Islam had gained dominance throughout Arabia. During this time, a considerable force of at least 100,000 devoted companions had gathered to support Prophet Muhammad. It is crucial to note that the Prophet was physically present in the world, and the Quran affirms that he was destined to prevail over his opponents, with Allah as his Lord, Gabriel as a righteous ally among the believers, and the angels as helpers (66:4). These circumstances highlight the strength and divine assistance bestowed upon the Prophet and his mission.

The question that arises is: If during the early period of Islam, with all the favourable conditions and the presence of the Prophet, it was not possible to execute those who mocked or insulted Islam, how could it be possible to do so today? It is illogical to suggest that Islam, in the presence of the Prophet, was in such a vulnerable state that it could not enforce punishment against blasphemers. By that reasoning, one could argue that Islam would be even weaker later. Therefore, a punishment that cannot be effectively implemented should be permanently abolished. Ibn Taymiyyah’s argument, in this regard, is deemed irrational and misguided.

Based on such an unreasonable argument, some individuals today advocate for the killing of blasphemers, regardless of their religious affiliation, the government they live under, or the period they belong to.

Not a Matter of Individual Rights

Many incidents in the available record of the Prophet’s sayings demonstrate cases of blasphemy against him during his lifetime. However, he chose to forgive these individuals and did not pursue any legal actions against them.

These incidents contradict the viewpoint of Ibn Taymiyyah and like-minded people. Ibn Taymiyyah, along with others like Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 1350 CE), argued that blasphemy against the Prophet constitutes an attack on his honour, thereby falling under the category of “rights of people” (Huququl Ibad). However, it is essential to note that this perspective is merely an opinion without clear evidence from the Quran or Hadith to support it. Without explicit proof from these sources, it cannot be classified as a matter of human rights or individual rights (Ibn Taymiyyah, As-Sarim al-Maslul, p. 219).

The reality is that an attack on the Prophet of Islam extends beyond a personal affront to his character; it is a direct assault on Islam itself. Consequently, it becomes a matter of defence rather than one solely pertaining to human rights. When someone claims that the Prophet of Islam lacked justice, it is not merely a personal attack on him but a challenge to the credibility of the Quran and Islam as a whole. In such cases, the Prophet’s forgiveness cannot be seen as condoning such a grave offence. Even after being forgiven by the Prophet, the underlying problem persists. The Prophet’s approach was to challenge such individuals ideologically rather than resorting to physical violence. Physical death does not absolve the blasphemer of the false allegations made against Islam or the Prophet of Islam.

Ideological Response, Not Punishment

The main error made by Ibn Taymiyyah and thinkers like him in this matter lies in their perception of ‘shatm’ (blasphemy) solely as a matter of enforcing legal punishment. However, in reality, blasphemy is a matter of defence. When someone engages in ‘shatm,’ they launch an ideological attack on the truth of Islam, and such an attack can only be effectively addressed through a counter-ideological response. Thus, killing the blasphemer is not a solution to this problem.

As mentioned earlier, Ibn Taymiyyah wrote in his book that when the polytheists used to mock the Prophet of Islam, Hasan bin Thabit defended him by responding to these insults through his poetic compositions. This demonstrates that blasphemy is indeed an ideological attack on Islam. Therefore, the correct and effective approach to counter it is by disproving and refuting it at the ideological level. This is a defensive measure rather than an imposition of Shariah punishment.

The reality is that blasphemy against Islam and the Prophet does not fit within the framework of a conventional legal crime. Only a counter-ideological response can effectively repel an ideological attack.

We cannot eliminate intellectual and ideological challenges by resorting to physical violence and killing the perpetrator. While killing a killer may resolve the problem, killing a ‘shatim’ (blasphemer) does not eradicate the problem of blasphemy. Blasphemy is an issue that persists even after the death of the blasphemer. And when the real issue persists, what is achieved by killing the person?

Therefore, if the real problem continues, what purpose does killing the person serve? Instead, we must address the concerns and objections raised by the blasphemer to provide clarity and understanding to everyone involved. We can foster a more informed and enlightened society by engaging in open dialogue and addressing these issues.